On 2022-08-05 9:34 AM, ojomooluwatolami675@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello, I’m new to learning python and I stumbled upon a question nested loops. This is the question below. Can you please how they arrived at 9 as the answer. Thanks
>
> var = 0
> for i in range(3):
> for j in range(-2,-7,-2):
> var += 1
> print(var)
>

Welcome to Python. I am sure you are going to enjoy it.

To learn Python, you must learn to use the Python interactive prompt
(also known as the REPL).

Type 'python' at your console, and it should bring up something like this -

C:\Users\E7280>python
Python 3.9.7 (tags/v3.9.7:1016ef3, Aug 30 2021, 20:19:38) [MSC v.1929 64
bit (AMD64)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>

The confusing part of your example above is 'for j in range(-2,-7,-2)'.

To find out what it does, enter it at the '>>>' prompt -

>>> for j in range(-2, -7, -2):
.... print(j)
....
-2
-4
-6
>>>

For the purposes of your exercise, all you need to know at this stage is
that it loops three times.

Does that help answer your question? If not, feel free to come back with
more questions.

BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5 should
line up with line 4. It is preferable to copy/paste your code into any
messages posted here rather than type it in, as that avoids the
possibility of any typos.

Frank Millman

On 05/08/2022 08:56, Frank Millman wrote:

> BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5 should
> line up with line 4.

As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about
indents. And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for
beginners.

For example, in the above code, the indent of the final line very
significantly affects the results:

print(var)
print(var)
print(var)

These are all different.

On 2022-08-05, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

>> BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5
>> should line up with line 4.
>
> As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about
> indents. And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for
> beginners.

As a C beginner, you'll find that C is annoyingly picky about curly
braces and semcolons.

All programming languages are picky about syntax.

> For example, in the above code, the indent of the final line very
> significantly affects the results:
>
> print(var)
> print(var)
> print(var)
>
> These are all different.

Indeed. It looks different, and it _is_ different. Seems like a good
thing to me. I like programs to do what it looks like they are going
to do.

In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.

if (foo)
do_this();
and_this();
then_do_this();

On 8/5/22 03:56, GB wrote:
> On 05/08/2022 08:56, Frank Millman wrote:
>
>> BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5
>> should line up with line 4.
>
> As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about
> indents.  And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for
> beginners.
>
> For example, in the above code, the indent of the final line very
> significantly affects the results:
>
> print(var)
>     print(var)
>         print(var)
>
> These are all different.

Yes, very picky. Python has chosen to use a (consistent) indent to
indicate a code block, as opposed to using extra syntactical characters
(curly braces, etc.) to delimit blocks. It's just a choice that was
made about how to instruct the interpreter what you mean, and there's
some argument that it improves readability later, when you go look at
your code months later, or someone else's code: the requirement to have
consistent indents means your brain can trust that the way the code is
indented is meaningful, rather than arbitrary. Also note that most
(all?) code formatters for other languages will enforce consistent
indenting too, In Python it just happens to be part of the language
rather than optional. So: you need to be clear about what you mean by
indenting correctly. All good code editors that understand Python
understand about this and will help you as much as they can.

I wonder if someone is pulling our leg as they are sending from an invalid
email address of "GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>" which is a bit sick.

I have trouble imagining ANYONE learning a language like python without
rapidly being told that python uses indentation instead of various ways to
detect when a body of text is considered a single composite item.

And code like their example is also nonsense:

print(var)
print(var)
print(var)

On my version of python, and likely most or all, it generates an error
message like:

SyntaxError: multiple statements found while compiling a single
statement

The way I see it, it is beyond irrelevant when learning a language what YOU
(the learner) think. The rules are the rules. If you do not like them and do
not have to use that language, go find another you might like.

If you want to stay with the language, you not only adjust but welcome new
ways of doing things. I have seen people stuck on code like this:

a, b, c = 5,4,3

others get nauseous at something like:

a, b, _ = some_func(args)

But the whole point is learning to appreciate what someone decided might
make the language more useful, easier to program in, avoid errors, be more
flexible, or maybe more efficient, or whatever design criteria apply. Only
once you understand more things like that, can you be in a position to
critique it as horrible.

So, speaking for myself, the poster is assumed, for now, to not be worth
responding to. I doubt they are a true beginner or at least that they have
spent any serious time learning.

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com@python.org> On
Behalf Of GB
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:57 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Trying to understand nested loops

On 05/08/2022 08:56, Frank Millman wrote:

> BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5
> should line up with line 4.

As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about indents.
And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for beginners.

For example, in the above code, the indent of the final line very
significantly affects the results:

print(var)
print(var)
print(var)

These are all different.

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:30 PM GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/08/2022 08:56, Frank Millman wrote:
>
> > BTW, there is an indentation error in your original post - line 5 should
> > line up with line 4.
>
> As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about
> indents. And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for
> beginners.
>
No, you should indent properly anyway. Python just reduces the number of
things to worry about.

Please see:
https://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/significant-whitespace.html
....for the usual.

On 06/08/2022 11.41, avi.e.gross@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if someone is pulling our leg as they are sending from an invalid
> email address of "GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>" which is a bit sick.

There are a number of folk who use evidently false email addresses - the
OP's had me amused.

Such 'hiding' is a matter for the List-Admins (thanks for all the work
exerted on our behalf!) and how it fits with the Code-of-Conduct.

> I have trouble imagining ANYONE learning a language like python without
> rapidly being told that python uses indentation instead of various ways to
> detect when a body of text is considered a single composite item.
>
> And code like their example is also nonsense:
>
> print(var)
> print(var)
> print(var)

Another way to look at that post, and what the author may have meant; is
that the final print(), incorrectly indented in the OP, could have been
written with three different indentations, and thus have three very
different effects (cf that they are all to be used, as-is).
--
Regards,
=dn

I had considered that, Dave. Albeit others did at least put in some
three-dot markers to show there was other code between the three lines
shown.

But the same silly argument they used applies elsewhere. Consider nested
calls like:

Delta(Gamma(Beta(Alpha)))

Now say one of those functions takes an argument like 666.

The following lines all mean different things, especially if all the above
functions can take an optional argument of 666.

Delta(Gamma(Beta(Alpha,666)))
Delta(Gamma(Beta(Alpha),666))
Delta(Gamma(Beta(Alpha)),666)
Delta(666,Gamma(Beta(Alpha)))
Delta(Gamma(666,Beta(Alpha)))
Delta(Gamma(Beta(666,Alpha)))

And of course any such function calls may be in contexts such as this:

Result, const = Delta(Gamma(Beta(Alpha))),666

My point is that whether using indentation or parentheses or braces or other
grouping techniques, exact placement according to the rules must apply. I
often write code where I use indentation to remind ME which argument goes
with which, such as this (more often not in python where indentation has no
real meaning and things can span multiple lines.

This:

Delta(Gamma(666,Beta(Alpha)))

May make more sense to write like this:

Delta(Gamma(666,
Beta(Alpha)))

Or in a more general case where each of the functions may take multiple
arguments before and/or after nested, calls, I might have a long convoluted
code where all arguments to a particular function are vertically aligned and
it is easier to spot if you left one out or put it in the wrong place.

It becomes a somewhat childish argument when writing CODE in any language
with rules, to suggest that it should ignore your mistakes and assume you
meant to have a comma here or parentheses there and similarly, that the
indentation level should govern which block your print statement is part of.

Hence my suggestion that perhaps someone is in a sense punking us

Of course it is perfectly possible the software this person is using makes
that deliberately unworkable email address as I have seen this elsewhere. It
just raises my suspicion level when I have seen other posts on various
mailing lists ranging from someone with pretty much no knowledge about a
topic but wanting someone to do their homework, to someone who throws in
something (perhaps incendiary) to watch others waste their time trying to
deal with their best guesses of what was wanted, to one guy who seems to
write articles or books and wants to see what people think but then does not
participate or tell us that is what they wanted.

My point was not to tell anyone else here what to do, simply that I will be
cautious with such posters as I have way better things to do!

Nested loops are indeed a hard topic for many. But when explained it no
longer seems reasonable to ask why print statements at different levels of
nesting differ.

Not to me, at least.

- Avi (for those like someone on another language/group who did not know how
to address me in overall too-polite format and referred to me as "Dear
" followed by more lines.

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com@python.org> On
Behalf Of dn
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 7:58 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Trying to understand nested loops

On 06/08/2022 11.41, avi.e.gross@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if someone is pulling our leg as they are sending from an
> invalid email address of "GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>" which is a
bit sick.

There are a number of folk who use evidently false email addresses - the
OP's had me amused.

Such 'hiding' is a matter for the List-Admins (thanks for all the work
exerted on our behalf!) and how it fits with the Code-of-Conduct.

> I have trouble imagining ANYONE learning a language like python
> without rapidly being told that python uses indentation instead of
> various ways to detect when a body of text is considered a single
composite item.
>
> And code like their example is also nonsense:
>
> print(var)
> print(var)
> print(var)

Another way to look at that post, and what the author may have meant; is
that the final print(), incorrectly indented in the OP, could have been
written with three different indentations, and thus have three very
different effects (cf that they are all to be used, as-is).
--
Regards,
=dn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:56:34 +0100, GB wrote:

> As a Python beginner, I find that Python is annoyingly picky about
> indents. And, the significance of indents is a bit of a minefield for
> beginners.

That reminds me of my youth, when I was doing another language where indentation
was important. The language name was COBOL, which stands for "Completely Outdated
Badly Overused Language". COBOL was (and still is) a beauty, especially with the
addition of CICS and DL/1.
Python is, in some spiritual sense, a scripting successor to COBOL. Some hippies at
Bell Labs, I believe that the names are Thompson, Kernighan and Ritchie, came up
with enclosing blocks of statements to be executed together within curly braces.
Those hippies did it precisely to avoid messing up the indentation, as it used to
happen far too often in the first procedural languages like Fortran, PL/1 and COBOL.
However, the pure nostalgia brought the indentation back, in the big way. That is
one of the reasons why democracy isn't a perfect system, as was well known to our
founding fathers. Simple majority rule can sometimes ruin a good thing and make
things worse for everyone. Welcome to Python, scripting language accepted by the
vast majority of scripters.
The main virtue of Python is that it is consistently object oriented. However,
object orientation itself is a disaster of biblical proportions:

https://developers.slashdot.org/story/19/07/22/0426201/is-object-oriented-programming-a-trillion-dollar-disaster
https://betterprogramming.pub/object-oriented-programming-the-trillion-dollar-disaster-92a4b666c7c7

So, we have the programming language which claims a consistent implementation of a
very suspect programming methodology at best as its main advantage. And true to the
form, the indentation is back. Python should be renamed to "Critical Programming
Theory".

PS:
I was forced to learn Python by the manager who said "we don't do Perl in this company".
Since scripting is an unavoidable part of the DBA job, I had to learn the COBOL of the
scripting languages. One can only hope that the messiah will return and make the curly
braces popular again. Until then I too will be suffering under the yolk of the Guido van
Rossum's monstrosity.

--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
>
> if (foo)
> do_this();
> and_this();
> then_do_this();
>
It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
> >
> > if (foo)
> > do_this();
> > and_this();
> > then_do_this();
> >
> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail

Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.

Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source project,
done using the project's own build system and therefore the team's
preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew of
warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
reason.

ChrisA

On 8/6/22 12:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
>>>
>>> if (foo)
>>> do_this();
>>> and_this();
>>> then_do_this();
>>>
>> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
>> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
>> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail
> Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.
>
> Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source project,
> done using the project's own build system and therefore the team's
> preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew of
> warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
> warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
> reason.
>
> ChrisA

You make it so you HAVE to fix the warning by adding the option to make
warnings into errors.

This does mean that you need to fix all the warnings that don't actually
mean anything,

Good code shouldn't generate many warnings, either you have warnings
enabled that you don't care about, or your code is doing things you have
told the complier you shouldn't do.

--
Richard Damon

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 22:08, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/6/22 12:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
> >>>
> >>> if (foo)
> >>> do_this();
> >>> and_this();
> >>> then_do_this();
> >>>
> >> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
> >> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
> >> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail
> > Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.
> >
> > Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source project,
> > done using the project's own build system and therefore the team's
> > preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew of
> > warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
> > warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
> > reason.
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> You make it so you HAVE to fix the warning by adding the option to make
> warnings into errors.
>
> This does mean that you need to fix all the warnings that don't actually
> mean anything,
>
> Good code shouldn't generate many warnings, either you have warnings
> enabled that you don't care about, or your code is doing things you have
> told the complier you shouldn't do.
>

I say again: have you ever watched the compilation of a large
open-source project? You cannot turn warnings into errors, because
there are ALWAYS warnings. Maybe, once upon a time, the policy was to
ensure that there were no warnings on any major compiler; but times
change, compilers add new warnings, new compilers join the club, and
it becomes practically impossible to prevent warnings. Which, in turn,
makes all warnings basically meaningless.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever compiled gcc from source. Maybe I should
do that, just to see whether gcc itself compiles with no warnings
under gcc.

ChrisA

On 8/6/22 8:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 22:08, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
>> On 8/6/22 12:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> if (foo)
>>>>> do_this();
>>>>> and_this();
>>>>> then_do_this();
>>>>>
>>>> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
>>>> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
>>>> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail
>>> Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.
>>>
>>> Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source project,
>>> done using the project's own build system and therefore the team's
>>> preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew of
>>> warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
>>> warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> ChrisA
>> You make it so you HAVE to fix the warning by adding the option to make
>> warnings into errors.
>>
>> This does mean that you need to fix all the warnings that don't actually
>> mean anything,
>>
>> Good code shouldn't generate many warnings, either you have warnings
>> enabled that you don't care about, or your code is doing things you have
>> told the complier you shouldn't do.
>>
> I say again: have you ever watched the compilation of a large
> open-source project? You cannot turn warnings into errors, because
> there are ALWAYS warnings. Maybe, once upon a time, the policy was to
> ensure that there were no warnings on any major compiler; but times
> change, compilers add new warnings, new compilers join the club, and
> it becomes practically impossible to prevent warnings. Which, in turn,
> makes all warnings basically meaningless.
>
> Hmm. I don't think I've ever compiled gcc from source. Maybe I should
> do that, just to see whether gcc itself compiles with no warnings
> under gcc.
>
> ChrisA

And for any project, that is a choice THEY made.

For projects where code quality is actually a defined metric, there is
normally a specified warning level (for a specified set of compilers and
versions) that the code needs to compile at least nearly clean at.

Yes, you can get that ton of warnings when at a higher warning level,
but that is why you specify the warning level to use, and put the
specific mitigations/suppressions for the few cases where the code is
correct, but generates that warning.

Yes, you can get a lot of warnings with another compiler, but that is
because you aren't running at the correct warning level for that
compiler, which is why the set of compilers that you are "warning free"
on is specified. When you add a new compiler, it may first not be
warning free until you make the effort (if you ever do) to make it
warning free for that.

Major open source projects will have a "toll gate" on the official
repository that checks that additions keep the code to the standard it
has established,

--
Richard Damon

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 22:39, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/6/22 8:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 22:08, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
> >> On 8/6/22 12:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (foo)
> >>>>> do_this();
> >>>>> and_this();
> >>>>> then_do_this();
> >>>>>
> >>>> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
> >>>> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with gcc:
> >>>> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-indentation-vs-goto-fail
> >>> Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.
> >>>
> >>> Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source project,
> >>> done using the project's own build system and therefore the team's
> >>> preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew of
> >>> warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
> >>> warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
> >>> reason.
> >>>
> >>> ChrisA
> >> You make it so you HAVE to fix the warning by adding the option to make
> >> warnings into errors.
> >>
> >> This does mean that you need to fix all the warnings that don't actually
> >> mean anything,
> >>
> >> Good code shouldn't generate many warnings, either you have warnings
> >> enabled that you don't care about, or your code is doing things you have
> >> told the complier you shouldn't do.
> >>
> > I say again: have you ever watched the compilation of a large
> > open-source project? You cannot turn warnings into errors, because
> > there are ALWAYS warnings. Maybe, once upon a time, the policy was to
> > ensure that there were no warnings on any major compiler; but times
> > change, compilers add new warnings, new compilers join the club, and
> > it becomes practically impossible to prevent warnings. Which, in turn,
> > makes all warnings basically meaningless.
> >
> > Hmm. I don't think I've ever compiled gcc from source. Maybe I should
> > do that, just to see whether gcc itself compiles with no warnings
> > under gcc.
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> And for any project, that is a choice THEY made.

Indeed. So you can't really say "good code shouldn't generate many
warnings" unless (a) you're saying that lots of projects are made up
of bad code, or (b) your statement that this is "a thing of the past"
is flat-out false, because it can only be valid if you assume that
everyone has that warning enabled, and preferably set to be an error.

So, for the vast majority of projects out there, indentation errors
are going to continue to go uncaught by C compilers. It's not "a thing
of the past" until most projects use the flag, and preferably, the
flag becomes active by default.

And for the record, I have seen spurious warnings from *that exact
flag* in a large project (an image parsing library). Spurious in that
the code was actually correct, despite the compiler warning about it.

ChrisA

This reminds me a bit of how routine spelling checkers and often especially
grammar checkers, generate so many suggestions about mistakes as to become
ignored. If you are writing using lots of names and jargon that keep getting
flagged as errors and they are spelled or used exactly as you want, then it
gets to be too annoying and you turn off the feature. Yes, you can sometimes
silence some things in a spell checker that allows you to add words to a
custom dictionary but for now, that dictionary is not known to every
application that checks your spelling.

That can be the nature of the beast. If your compiler decides to warn you
every time you do a division that you might be dividing by zero because you
do not perform the test right before that, then you end up with code that
tests it AGAIN after having arranged for the value to never be zero in the
first place, then test it again when you divide something else by it, ...

I am sure some programming language has some kind of pragma that lets you
whisper to the compiler that this variable at this time is guaranteed not to
be zero, or that the region is in a try/catch zone which will intercept and
fix the results of a divide by zero error.

Just an example. And as you say, new or improved compilers can be made to be
ever more picky about trying to find possible anomalies.

Things are useful when they are somewhat manageable. If a compiler things it
detects 372 places in your code where the same thing needs to be mentioned,
such as reserving space for an object without simultaneously filling it with
some contents, then it would be nice if instead of printing ALL of them, it
consolidated it into one warning and say you can click on something to see
the 372 instances.

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com@python.org> On
Behalf Of Chris Angelico
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 8:12 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Trying to understand nested loops

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 22:08, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/6/22 12:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 13:54, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:54 PM Grant Edwards
> >> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In C, this doesn't do what it looks like it's supposed to do.
> >>>
> >>> if (foo)
> >>> do_this();
> >>> and_this();
> >>> then_do_this();
> >>>
> >> It's been quite a while since I used C, but with the right compiler
> >> flag(s), I think this may be a thing of the past when compiling with
gcc:
> >> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/26/gcc-6-wmisleading-ind
> >> entation-vs-goto-fail
> > Ah yes, because compiler warnings are always viewed and acted upon.
> >
> > Have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source
> > project, done using the project's own build system and therefore the
> > team's preferred warning settings? It's normal to have such a spew
> > of warnings that you can't find anything interesting, or to have new
> > warnings in new versions of GCC be utterly useless for the same
> > reason.
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> You make it so you HAVE to fix the warning by adding the option to
> make warnings into errors.
>
> This does mean that you need to fix all the warnings that don't
> actually mean anything,
>
> Good code shouldn't generate many warnings, either you have warnings
> enabled that you don't care about, or your code is doing things you
> have told the complier you shouldn't do.
>

I say again: have you ever watched the compilation of a large open-source
project? You cannot turn warnings into errors, because there are ALWAYS
warnings. Maybe, once upon a time, the policy was to ensure that there were
no warnings on any major compiler; but times change, compilers add new
warnings, new compilers join the club, and it becomes practically impossible
to prevent warnings. Which, in turn, makes all warnings basically
meaningless.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever compiled gcc from source. Maybe I should do
that, just to see whether gcc itself compiles with no warnings under gcc.

ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

dn wrote:
> On 06/08/2022 11.41, avi.e.gross@gmail.com wrote:
>> I wonder if someone is pulling our leg as they are sending from an
>> invalid email address of "GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>" which is
>> a bit sick.
>
> There are a number of folk who use evidently false email addresses - the
> OP's had me amused.
>
> Such 'hiding' is a matter for the List-Admins (thanks for all the work
> exerted on our behalf!) and how it fits with the Code-of-Conduct.

Invalid sending addresses (email@somewhere.invalid) are a standard
practice in Usenet, to combat bots scraping posts for email addresses
(remember, Usenet predates basically all spam prevention tech).

As there is a gateway between the mailing lists and Usenet, I *imagine*
that the use of said invalid addresses are within the rules -- I mean,
if they weren't, the maintainers wouldn't keep the two lists
connected.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=6yDi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 08/08/2022 12:59, Dan Purgert wrote:
> dn wrote:
>> On 06/08/2022 11.41, avi.e.gross@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I wonder if someone is pulling our leg as they are sending from an
>>> invalid email address of "GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>" which is
>>> a bit sick.
>
>> There are a number of folk who use evidently false email addresses - the
>> OP's had me amused.
>
>> Such 'hiding' is a matter for the List-Admins (thanks for all the work
>> exerted on our behalf!) and how it fits with the Code-of-Conduct.
>
> Invalid sending addresses (email@somewhere.invalid) are a standard
> practice in Usenet, to combat bots scraping posts for email addresses
> (remember, Usenet predates basically all spam prevention tech).
>
> As there is a gateway between the mailing lists and Usenet, I *imagine*
> that the use of said invalid addresses are within the rules -- I mean,
> if they weren't, the maintainers wouldn't keep the two lists
> connected.
>
>
>

The history in my case is as follows:

Years ago, I used Outlook Express, and, for setting up NG access, they
suggested an example email address: someone@microsoft.com.

I did not want to give my true email address, lest it be 'scraped', so I
used: NOTsomeone@microsoft.com. I added the NOT, to avoid misleading
people.

Later, I was prevailed upon to change com to invalid.

List admins? This particular NG appears to be blessedly free of spam,
but I hadn't realised it is moderated?